I listened to it and cannot not think of anything to pick on. One might say this piece should be played at a consistent tempo, but I think it makes a great deal more sense for tempo to be played rubato for this piece. I know Chopin said the left hand should play the role of a steady ticker and the right hand deserves more tempo freedom and it seems you have done that here well. I know I would not think the same way of his Op. 64 and 69 set if I heard them played in anything other than a jolly and sweeping style with a tempo to match. Thanks for this great interpretation of Chopins waltz

-Riley

_________________"I don't know what music is, but I know it when I hear it." - Alan SchuylerRiley Tucker

This is certainly more convincing than the previous version, and in better sound too. Some beautiful details of rubato and dynamics (sometimes a bit more finicky than I would do, but that is personal taste).The only thing I could possibly pick on is that your touch could be a bit firmer. There are some weak notes here and there, particularly in some of the LH chords. Also there still seems to be a tiny glitch in the final downward tumble, or am I imagining it ?But anyway, lovely and sensitive playing which I'm sure Chopin would have approved of.

Just thought I'd pop in again and say that IMHO this is a significant improvement over the initial version -- much more controlled tempo; nice, even pedalling in general; playful, givenchy sense of rubato; nice lefthand balance. I heard some phrasings and timings I've not heard before, and one cannot ask for more as a listener

I do have a couple of suggestions/discussion points in case you revisit this waltz in the future (I would like to emphasize though that your playing of this is already very nice; these may be more in the "matters of taste" category).

1. It could be a bit lighter in places, particularly in the middle section (note the sotto voce marking). You do have some wonderful fleeting dynamic contrasts in the outer pinwheel sections, but the middle section sounded slightly turgid to my ears. Maybe a bit more dramatic dynamic contrast and slightly crisper rhythms could be in order.

2. The bass notes are much better balanced against the dancing accompaniments, but it seems sometimes that they become a bit too thunderous at some of the climaxes.

3. I have to say that I find the way you handle the entrance to the final runs intriguing, though it might be just a bit too much of a pause for my taste (i.e., too interruptive of the flow). A ritard is certainly called for, but maybe not a full rest stop I do love your dynamics and general rhythmic sense here though -- very charming and gracious.

4. The final run I still find a bit tame, but it is a tricky one indeed. This could maybe be a bit more spontaneous and wild as it builds tension toward that final A-flat.

Just a few nitpicks though. I truly enjoyed this performance.

P.S. If you don't mind my asking, what recording setup do you use? The mic sound is very clear.

Kaila,Just thought I'd pop in again and say that IMHO this is a significant improvement over the initial version -- much more controlled tempo; nice, even pedalling in general; playful, givenchy sense of rubato; nice lefthand balance. I heard some phrasings and timings I've not heard before, and one cannot ask for more as a listener ...

...P.S. If you don't mind my asking, what recording setup do you use? The mic sound is very clear.

Joe,

Thank you for your reply and thoughtful comments.

Regarding the recording setup, my project manager Kb writes,

"...The Steinway piano was recorded using a pair of Schoeps (with CMC6 preamplifier and MK-4 cardioid capsules) in 'ORTF' method and two AKG 414 (in omni pattern) as 'flanking mics.' The ORTF pair were placed about 5 feet from the piano, in center. The AKG 414's about 15 feet on each side of the Schoeps (following the 3 to 1 rule). Of course, another critical factor; a beautiful sounding room in which to record.

Recorded directly to 'Pro Tools.' In post, mixed the 414's much lower; only brought them up to the point where they 'filled out' the space a bit. I added a 'touch of ambience' and a *little* 'eq' (upper mid and highs) to the source track that would apply to both the wet and dry result. ..."

This is the first time I have ever seen a supplemental "kickstand" for a piano lid. Is this piano longer than 9'? (I don't think Steinway ever made one (in fact their current Concert grands are 8'11.5") and I can't see why it would need such a device unless the lid was extra-long as in a Bosendorfer Imperial Grand (?)).

_________________Eddy M. del Rio, MD"A smattering will not do. They must know all the keys, major and minor, and they must literally 'know them backwards.'" - Josef Lhevinne

This is the first time I have ever seen a supplemental "kickstand" for a piano lid. Is this piano longer than 9'? (I don't think Steinway ever made one (in fact their current Concert grands are 8'11.5") and I can't see why it would need such a device unless the lid was extra-long as in a Bosendorfer Imperial Grand (?)).

Eddy,

I forwarded your question about the second 'lid prop' to the studio director. She replied:

"...Our Steinway is a 9'1" Concert grand which we had modified by the Steinway factory technicians. The 2nd lid prop was integrated after we purchased the piano. For certain sessions it's necessary to isolate the piano from other instruments in the studio. This supports the weight of blankets on the lid used in this particular recording situation. ..."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum